2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Andrew H. Wilson WILSON, RYAN & CAMPILONGO 235 Montgomery Street Suite 450
San Francisco, California 94104 (415) 391-3900
Laurie J. Bartilson
BOWLES & MOXON
6255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 2000
Hollywood, CA 90028
(213) 661-4030
Attorneys for Plaintiff CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
RECEIVED MAR 0 3 1993 HUB LAW OFFICES
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY )
INTERNATIONAL, a California not-for-profit) religious corporation, )
Plaintiff, )
vs.
CASE NO. BC 052395
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF THE FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH, SEVENTH, NINTH AND ELEVENTH CAUSES OF ACTION OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
GERALD ARMSTRONG; DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
Defendants.
) DATE: March 31, 1993 ) TIME: 8:30 a.m.
) DEPT: 30
)
) DISC CUT-OFF: Apr. 2, 1993 ) MTN CUT-OFF: Apr. 19, 1993 ) TRIAL DATE: May 3, 1993
)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 31, 1993, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as may be heard in Department 30 of the above-entitled Court located at 1 1 1 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, California, plaintiff Church of Scientology International ("the Church") will move this Court to issue an order granting summary adjudication of plaintiff's Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Eleventh Causes of Action (for breach of contract resulting in liquidated damages) in favor of the Church, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c. This Motion is made on the grounds that there is no triable issue of any material fact relevant to plaintiff's enumerated claims for breach of contract, and that the Church is entitled to judgment on those causes of action as a matter of law.
This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the pleadings, records and files herein, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the declarations and exhibits filed herewith, the accompanying Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, and such other evidence as may be adduced properly at the hearing of this Motion.
Dated: March 2, 1993 Respectfully submitted,
Andrew H. Wilson
WILSON, RYAN & CAMPILONGO
BOWLES & MOXON
Attorneys for Plaintiff CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT . 1
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS . 3
A. The Settlement Agreement . 3
B. Armstrong's Willing Participation in the Settlement
Process . 5
C. Armstrong's Breaches of Paragraph 7(D)
of the Agreement . 6
1. Armstrong Violated The Agreement By Providing A
Declaration About His Experiences With The Church And Additional Documents To Anti-Church Litigants Vicki
and Richard Aznaran . 6
2 . Armstrong Violated The Agreement
By Issuing A Press Release . 7
3. Armstrong Violated The Agreement
By Giving Interviews To The Media . 7
4. Armstrong Violated The Agreement By His Participation In The Case of Hunziker, et al.
v. Applied Materials, et al . 8
5. Armstrong Violated The Agreement By
Providing A Declaration About His Experiences
With The Church And Additional Documents
To David Mayo, et al . 8
III. ARGUMENT . 9
A. Armstrong's Liability For The Breaches May Be
Determined By Summary Adjudication . 9
B. The Undisputed Evidence Supports A Judgment For
Plaintiff In The Amount of $500,000 In Liquidated Damages . 10
CONCLUSION . 12
l
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2:
2:
2.
2!
2 1
2’
2!
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page (
CASES
Hunziker et al. v. Applied Materials, et al..
Santa Clara Superior Court, Case No. 692629 . 8
Nizuk v. Georges
(1960) 180 Cal . App . 2d 699, 4 Cal.Rptr. 565 . 10
Reichert v. General Insurance Company of America
(1968) 68 Cal. 2d 822, 69 Cal.Rptr. 321, 462 P.2d 377 . 11
University of Southern California v. Superior Court
(1990) 222 Cal. App. 3d 1028, 272 Cal.Rptr. 264 . 10
STATUTES
C.C.P. §437c (n) (1) . 10
Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c) . 9
Gov. Code § 53069.85 . 11
li
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
In December, 1986, plaintiff Church of Scientology International ("the Church" or "plaintiff") sought to end a tong period of bitter harassment and attack from former Church member Gerald Armstrong ("Armstrong" or "defendant"). Armstrong's lengthy campaign was ended, or so plaintiff thought, when he entered into a confidential Settlement Agreement (the "Agreement") with plaintiff in 1986. [Sep. St. 1.] The terms of the Agreement required Armstrong not merely to end his own litigation against plaintiff, but among other things, also required Armstrong to refrain from aiding others in litigation, to return to the Church the documents which he had stolen and all copies of them, to refrain from discussing with third parties his experiences with the Scientology religion, and to keep confidential all terms of the Agreement itself. In exchange for his promises, Armstrong received $800,000 from the Church. [Sep. St. No. 7-8.]
The Agreement was signed by Armstrong, on videotape, after he consulted with not one, but two, separate attorneys. [Sep. St. No. 5.] At the time, Armstrong stated to the Church's attorney before a video camera and live witnesses, that he fully understood the Agreement, and that he was signing it of his own free will. [Sep. St. No. 6.]
The Church has fully performed all of its obligations pursuant to the Agreement. [Sep. St. Nos. 9-10.] The facts are undisputed, however, that Armstrong has breached the Agreement in at least the following ways, each of which requires the immediate payment by Armstrong of liquidated damages, as set forth in Paragraph 7(D) of the Agreement:
- Provided a declaration to litigants suing the Church which purports to describe his experiences with the Church of Scientology, and which attaches copies of documents which relate to or concern the Church, the Scientology religion and/or other protected entities or individuals [Amended Complaint
l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
("Am.CmpIt."), Fourth and Ninth Causes of Action];
- Provided a declaration to other litigants adverse to the Church which purported to describe his experiences in the Church and which sought to authenticate a portion of a transcript which had been ordered sealed in the earlier action between the Church and Armstrong;
- Had his attorney prepare and send a press release which, inter alia, purports to discuss Armstrong's experiences with the Church of Scientology [Am.CmpIt., Fifth Cause of Action];
- Provided a live interview to Cable News Network (CNN) in which he discussed, inter alia, his experiences with the Church of Scientology [Am.CmpIt., Sixth Cause of Action];
- Provided an interview to a reporter for The American Lawyer magazine in which he also discussed, inter alia, his experiences with the Church of Scientology, in violation of his contractual obligations;
- Met on two separate occasions with attorneys for litigants suing the Church and discussed his experiences with the Church of Scientology with them for several hours [Am.CmpIt., Seventh Cause of Action];
- Agreed to appear as a purported "expert" on the Scientology religion and practice on behalf of litigants hostile to the Church of Scientology [Am.CmpIt., Seventh Cause of Action]; and
- Deliberately reacquired hundreds of documents concerning the Church of Scientology and provided them to attorneys for litigants adverse to the Church.
[id-]
With no facts in dispute, interpretation of the meaning and effect of the contractual provisions which provide the Church with a remedy for these breaches is a matter of law for the Court, and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Causes of Action may all be adjudicated in the Church's favor on a
2
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
motion for summary adjudication.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. The Settlement Agreement
In December, 1986, the Church entered into the Agreement with Armstrong. The Agreement provided for a mutual release and waiver of all claims arising out of a cross-complaint which defendant Armstrong had filed in Church of Scientology of California v. Gerald Armstrong. Los Angeles Superior Court No. C 4201 53. 1 The Agreement contains various provisions designed to guarantee that new actions were not spawned or encouraged by the conclusion of the old one. In particular, with respect to the causes of action at issue in this motion, paragraph 7(D) provides that Armstrong: (1) would not create or publish, or assist another in creating or publishing, any media publication or broadcast, concerning information about the Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, or any other persons or entities released by the Agreement; (2) would maintain "strict confidentiality and silence" with respect to his alleged experiences with the Church or any knowledge he might have concerning the Church, L. Ron Hubbard, or other Scientology-related entities and individuals; (3) would not disclose any documents which related to the Church or other identified entities and individuals; and (4) would pay to the Church $50,000 in liquidated damages for each disclosure or other breach of that
1 The signatories to the Agreement were Gerald Armstrong and the Church of Scientology International, by its President, Heber Jentzsch. [Sep. St. Nos. 1, 2.] (All references to evidence are to the Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts, concurrently filed, which provides, by number, a full reference to the evidence in
support of this motion. References will be made to "Sep. St. No. _ " for "Separate
Statement of Undisputed Facts, Fact Number _ .") Mr. Armstrong's signature was
witnessed by JoAnn Richardson and Michael Sutter, and the Agreement was signed with approval as to form and content by Mr. Armstrong's attorney, Michael Flynn. [Sep. St. Nos. 3, 4.]
3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
paragraph.2 Other paragraphs in the Agreement restricted Armstrong's ability to provide voluntary aid or advice to others litigating against the Church. 3
The Church had good reason for negotiating these particular clauses with Armstrong. In addition to his own litigation, Armstrong fomented significant additional litigation against the Church and other Churches of Scientology, stirring up enmities of other former members. Moreover, Armstrong became involved in plot after clandestine plot to take over or even destroy his former religion. [Am. Compl., H 3.]
2 Paragraph 7(D) provides, in relevant part: "Plaintiff [Armstrong] agrees never to create or publish or attempt to publish, and/or assist another to create for publication by means of magazine, article, book or other similar form, any writing or to broadcast or to assist another to create, write, film or video tape or audio tape any show, program or movie, or to grant interviews or discuss with others, concerning their experiences with the Church of Scientology, or concerning their personal or indirectly acquired knowledge or information concerning the Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard or any of the organizations, individuals and entities listed in Paragraph 1 above. [Armstrong] further agrees that he will maintain strict confidentiality and silence with respect to his experiences with the Church of Scientology and any knowledge or information he may have concerning the Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, or any of the organizations, individuals and entities listed in Paragraph 1 above. [Armstrong] expressly understands that the non-disclosure provisions of this subparagraph shall apply, inter alia, but not be limited, to the contents or substance of his complaint on file in the action referred to in Paragraph 1 hereinabove or any documents as defined in Appendix "A" to this Agreement, including but not limited to any tapes, films, photographs, recastings, variations or copies of any such materials which concern or relate to the religion of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, or any of the organizations, individuals, or entities listed in Paragraph 1 above... [Armstrong] agrees that if the terms of this paragraph are breached by him, that CSI and the other Releases would be entitled to liquidated damages in the amount of $50,000 for each such breach. All monies received to induce or in payment for a breach of this Agreement, or any part thereof, shall be held in a constructive trust pending the outcome of any litigation over said breach. The amount of liquidated damages herein is an estimate of the damages each party would suffer in the event this Agreement is breached. The reasonableness of the amount of such damages are hereto acknowledged by [Armstrong]."
See specifically 1<[ 7(H), 7(G), 10, 7(D), 18(D), 20 of the Agreement.
[Exhibit B to Sep. St.]
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Armstrong received a portion of a total settlement amount paid to his attorney, Michael Flynn, in a block settlement with all of Mr. Flynn's clients who were in litigation with any Church of Scientology or related entity. [Sep. St. No. 7.] The exact portion of the settlement which Armstrong received was supposed to have remained confidential between Mr. Flynn and Armstrong; however,
Armstrong has stated to the media that he received $800,000 as his portion of the block settlement, and has proffered documentary evidence to support this figure. [Sep. St. No. 8.]
B. Armstrong's Willing Participation in the Settlement Process
At the time of the settlement, the Church had little reason to trust
Armstrong. Consequently, Church counsel insisted that Armstrong execute the
Agreement on videotape, before several witnesses and a notary public, with his
own lawyer present, in order to ensure that Armstrong would not later attempt to
invalidate the Agreement through the subterfuge of claims of duress or the like.
During the videotaping, a jovial and relaxed Armstrong joked with his counsel, and,
in a light-hearted mood, signed the Agreement. Armstrong engaged in the
following colloquy with Church counsel Larry Heller at that time:
HELLER: O.K. Ah, Mr. Armstrong, I'm going to ask you to sign three documents, ah, a Mutual Release of All Claims and Settlement Agreement, and two separate affidavits. Prior to doing so, however, I would like to ask you some questions with regard to those documents, um-hm, excuse me, which I would like you to answer freely and honestly, if you would. Ah, first of all, have you had a chance to, ah, completely and comprehensively review and read these documents?
ARMSTRONG: Yeah.
HELLER: O.K. Have you had a chance to discuss these documents with your attorney, Mr. Flynn?
ARMSTRONG: Yes.
HELLER: Has Mr. Flynn explained these documents as well as the legal and factual ramifications to you, legal and practical ramifications to you to your satisfaction?
5
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ARMSTRONG: Uh, I think so, yes.
HELLER: O.k. Well, do you have any question of that whatsoever? ARMSTRONG: No, I have no current questions about it.
HELLER: O.k. Very good. You are going to sign these of your own free will?
ARMSTRONG: Yes.
HELLER: O.k. You are not suffering from any duress or coercion which is compelling you to sign these documents?
ARMSTRONG: No.
HELLER: All right. You are not presently under the influence of alcohol or any medication, prescription or otherwise, which would impede your ability to comprehend the legal and factual intent of these documents?
ARMSTRONG: No.
[Sep. St. No. 6.] Armstrong has also admitted that, prior to signing the Agreement, he consulted not just Flynn, but another lawyer, Michael Walton, about the Agreement. [Sep. St. No. 5.]
C. Armstrong's Breaches of Paragraph 7(D) of the Agreement
1. Armstrong Violated The Agreement By Providing A Declaration About His Experiences With The Church And Additional Documents To Anti- Church Litigants Vicki And Richard Aznaran
Vicki and Richard Aznaran ("the Aznarans"), are former Church members currently engaged in litigation against the Church and others. [Sep. St. No. 11.] In June, 1991, the Aznarans discharged their attorney, Ford Greene, and retained Joseph A. Yanny to represent them.
While counsel for the Aznarans, Yanny hired Armstrong, in Yanny's own words "as a paralegal to help [Yanny] on the Aznaran case." [Sep. St. No. 1 1 A.] Yanny was well aware that Armstrong was prohibited from this conduct by the Agreement: Yanny was one of the attorneys representing the Church at the time that the Agreement was made. Thereafter, in July, 1991, Yanny was disqualified
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
from his representation of the Aznarans by the Court sua sponte, because Yanny had formerly acted as general counsel for the Church and other related entities, thus rendering his appearance on behalf of the Aznarans "highly prejudicial" to the Church. In the same order, the Court reinstated Ford Greene as the Aznarans' counsel. Armstrong immediately began working for Ford Greene.
The undisputed evidence -- comprised of Armstrong's own admissions -- is that on August 26, 1991, while working for Greene, Armstrong provided the Aznarans with a declaration, which was filed in their case. Armstrong has admitted that he drafted and signed the declaration, and that the declaration contains descriptions of some of his alleged experiences with and knowledge of the Church. Armstrong also attached to the declaration, and purported to authenticate, copies of two documents which concern the Church, the Scientology religion, and/or other protected entities and individuals. [Sep. St. No. 12.] This declaration, and the attached documents, are violations of Armstrong's agreement, contained in 17(D), to maintain strict confidentiality concerning those matters.
2. Armstrong Violated The Agreement Bv Issuing A Press Release
Armstrong has also admitted that, on March 20, 1992, Armstrong and his attorney, Ford Greene, issued a press release which contains Armstrong's version of some of his alleged experiences with the Church. [Sep. St. No. 13.] This is another violation of 17(D) of the Agreement.
3. Armstrong Violated The Agreement Bv Giving Interviews To The Media
Armstrong was not content merely to issue a press release last March. Armstrong also has admitted in deposition that on March 19 and 20, 1992, he gave interviews to various reporters, including a reporter for CNN. In his CNN interview, Armstrong discussed his alleged experiences with the Church of Scientology. The interview was videotaped, then broadcast repeatedly on CNN.
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[Sep. St. No. 14-16.] In addition, Armstrong has admitted to a 1992 interview with William Horne, a reporter with The American Lawyer, in which he also discussed his Scientology experiences. [Sep. St. No. 17.] Each of these interviews constitutes a breach of 17(D) of the Agreement.
4. Armstrong Violated The Agreement By His Participation In The Case of Hunziker, et al. v. Applied Materials, et al.
Armstrong has also admitted, under oath, that in February, 1992, he agreed to appear in the case of Hunziker et al. v. Applied Materials, et al.. Santa Clara Superior Court, Case No. 692629, as an "expert witness" on the subject of Scientology beliefs and practices, on behalf of plaintiffs Hunziker, Schumach and Saunders.4 [Sep. St. No. 20.] On February 21, 1992, he met with Schumach's attorney, James Rummonds, for two to three hours, and discussed his alleged experiences with Scientology. [Sep. St. No. 20.] On February 23, 1992, he met with Hunziker's attorney, John C. Elstead, and again discussed his knowledge of Scientology. [Sep. St. No. 21.] In addition, Armstrong produced documents concerning Scientology to Hunziker's attorneys on March 8, 1992. [Sep. St. No. 22.] These actions are all individual and separate violations of 17(D) of the Agreement.
5. Armstrong Violated The Agreement By Providing A Declaration About His Experiences With The Church And Additional Documents To David Mavo, et al.
The facts are also undisputed that, on May 27, 1992, Armstrong provided a
4 The Hunziker case was an employment discrimination case, brought by ex¬ employees of defendant Applied Materials, who claimed that management training courses offered by their employer were actually Scientology courses. Although the Church was not a party to the action, a Church-related entity, the World Institute of Scientology Enterprises (WISE), was a named, but unserved, defendant. The case settled prior to trial. WISE is a Church of Scientology affiliated organization and is thus a "releasee" under the terms of the Settlement Agreement. [Sep. St. No. 18-19.)
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
declaration to attorneys for litigants David Mayo, Church of the New Civilization, John Nelson, Harvey Haber, Vivien Zegel and Dede Reisdorf, which was filed in the consolidated cases of Religious Technology Center, et al. v. Robin Scott, et al.. and Religious Technology Center, et al. v. Wollersheim. et al.. United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case Nos. CV 85-711 JMI (Bx) and CV 85-7197 JMI (Bx) ("the Scott case") [Sep. St. Nos. 24-25]. The Church and related entities - Church of Scientology of California and Religious Technology Center - are plaintiffs in the Scott case. In the declaration, Armstrong purports to authenticate an earlier declaration which describes some of his alleged experiences with the Church, as well as a portion of a transcript which was ordered sealed in the earlier action between the Church and Armstrong. []d .] These actions are separate and further violations of 17(D), triggering the liquidated damages remedy.
III. ARGUMENT
A. Armstrong's Liability For The Breaches May Be Determined Bv Summary Adjudication
A motion for summary adjudication "shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c). Moreover, under a provision recently added to the Code of Civil Procedure:
(n) For purposes of motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication:
(1) a plaintiff or cross-complainant has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on that cause of action. Once the plaintiff or cross¬ defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant or cross-defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
facts exists as to that cause of action.
C.C.P. §437c(n)(1 ). As demonstrated below, and in the Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts, the Church has met its burden by proving, from Armstrong's own admissions, each element of the causes of action for breach of contract for which summary adjudication is sought.
Once the moving party has shown the nonexistence of a factual dispute as to a material fact, the party opposing the motion can avoid summary adjudication only by presenting evidence tending to demonstrate that there exists a triable issue of material fact. See, e.a.. University of Southern California v. Superior Court (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1028, 1036, 272 Cal.Rptr. 264, 268-269.
Indeed, courts have found that summary adjudication can be particularly appropriate for a cause of action for breach of a written contract. "Where there is no conflict as to the terms of a contract, and where its provisions are not uncertain or ambiguous, its 'meaning and effect * * * and the relation of the parties to it thereby created * * * become a question of law to be decided by the court.'"
Nizuk v. Georges (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 699, 705, 4 Cal.Rptr. 565, 570 (citations omitted) (Liability under written employment contract properly decided on motion for summary judgment). Here, the parties agree on the existence of the written contract between them [Sep. St. No. 1], and there is no dispute as to its language or terms. The evidence of the breaches consists of undenied facts presented by plaintiff and the admissions of the defendant himself. All that remains to be decided - the meaning and effect of those terms - is a question of law for the court.
B. The Undisputed Evidence Supports A Judgment For Plaintiff
In The Amount of $500,000 In Liquidated Damages
To establish its claim for breach of contract, the Church must establish, by competent and undisputed evidence, "(1) the contract, (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 21 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
damages to plaintiff." Reichert v. General Insurance Company of America (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 822, 830, 69 Cal.Rptr. 321, 325, 462 P.2d 377.
Each of these elements is fully established by undisputed evidence as to plaintiff's Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Eleventh Causes of Action. Armstrong has fully identified and authenticated the Agreement [Ex. B to Sep. St.] and his signature thereon. [Sep. St. No. 4.] He has acknowledged that he signed the Agreement while fully expecting to be paid the settlement figure which he and his attorney agreed upon, and he has admitted that he received that amount.
[Sep. St. No. 7.] It is also undisputed that the amount was $800,000, not a small or nominal sum. [Sep. St. No. 8.] The payment of money to Armstrong's attorney is the sole consideration required of plaintiff pursuant to the Agreement, and it was fully paid within days of the signing of the Agreement. [Sep. St. Nos. 1,7.]
Armstrong's breaches have been detailed in Part II. C, supra, and are set forth, with their supporting evidence, in the accompanying separate statement. Each of the acts that constitute a breach has been admitted bv Armstrong, either in his Answer to the Amended Complaint, in deposition, or both. The evidence chronicled in the separate statement demonstrates not one, but ten, separate, individual breaches of paragraph 7(D) of the Agreement.
The damages suffered by plaintiff by reason of Armstrong's breaches of paragraph 7(D) of the Agreement are also without dispute. As part of the Agreement, the parties settled on $50,000, as liquidated damages, which would compensate plaintiff for each breach of 17(D). Armstrong and his attorney agreed, when they signed the Agreement, that this was a reasonable amount. [Sep. St. No. 9.] Under California law, such a liquidated damages provision is presumed valid unless it is shown to be "manifestly unreasonable under the circumstances existing at the time the contract was made." Gov. Code § 53069.85.
The evidence is undisputed that at the time the Agreement was made, the
ll
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Church was settling not one, but 14 lawsuits. The cost to the Church of litigating all of those claims was extremely high. Armstrong and his lawyer knew that the Church was only willing to provide him with such a substantial sum in settlement on the condition that all of the extended litigation terminate. [Sep. St. No. 10.] Armstrong and his lawyer also knew that it was impossible to calculate, at the time of settlement, the likely cost to plaintiff should Armstrong breach his agreement to maintain silence, and begin, as he has, providing untruthful and biased accounts concerning plaintiff to litigants and the media. The Church was aware of Armstrong's substantial activities in both aiding other anti-Church litigants and in inciting others to attack, or even infiltrate, the Church based on his tall tales and his inclination for intrigue. The stipulated amount was plainly reasonable in light of the substantial amount of the settlement, the cost of the litigation being settled, and the highly speculative nature of the overall financial effect that breaches by Armstrong would be likely to create.
CONCLUSION
Armstrong has admitted to ten separate breaches of the Agreement which require him to pay the Church $500,000 in liquidated damages. There are no disputed issues of fact as to any of the elements of plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff is, accordingly, entitled to summary adjudication of its Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Eleventh Causes of Action, and it is entitled to entry of judgment on III III III III III III III
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
those claims in the amount of $500,000.
Dated: March 2, 1993 Respectfully submitted,
Andrew H. Wilson
WILSON, RYAN & CAMPILONGO
BOWLES & MOXON
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
H:\ARMSTRON\SJLIQUID.2
13
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 6255 Sunset Blvd. , Suite 2000, Hollywood, California 90028.
On MARCH 2, 1993, I served the foregoing document described as PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF THE FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH, SEVENTH, NINTH AND ELEVENTH CAUSES OF ACTION OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF on interested parties in this action by
[ ] placing the true copies thereof in sealed envelopes as stated on the attached mailing list;
[X] placing [ ] the original [X] a true copy thereof in sealed envelopes addressed as follows;
Ford Greene HUB Law Offices
711 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard San Anselmo, CA 9490-1949
[X] BY MAIL
[ ] *1 deposited such envelope in the mail at Los Angeles, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid.
[X] As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondece for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. _ I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of
-2-
deposit for mailing in affidavit.
Executed on March 2, 1993, at Los Angeles, California.
[ ] * * ** (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I delivered such envelope by hand to the addressee.
Executed on _ , 1993, at Los Angeles, California.
[X] (State) I declare under penalty of the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.
[ ] (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made.
Type or Print Name
Signature
* (By Mail, signature must be of person depositing envelope in mail slot, box or bag)
** (For personal service signature must be that of messenger)
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 6255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 2000, Hollywood, California 90028.
On March 2, 1993, I served the foregoing document described as PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF THE FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH, SEVENTH, NINTH AND ELEVENTH CAUSES OF ACTION OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF on interested parties in this action by
[ ] placing the true copies thereof in sealed envelopes as stated on the attached mailing list;
[X] placing [ ] the original [X] a true copy thereof in sealed envelopes addressed as follows:
Paul Morantz BY HAND
P.O. Box 511
Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
[ ] BY MAIL
[ ] *1 deposited such envelope in the mail at Los Angeles, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid.
[ ] As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondece for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of
-2-
deposit for mailing in affidavit.
Executed on _ , 1993, at Los Angeles, California.
[X] * * ** (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of the addressee.
Executed on March 2, 1993, at Los Angeles, California.
[X] (State) I declare under penalty of the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.
[ ] (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made.
Type or Print Name Signature
* (By Mail, signature must be of person depositing envelope in mail slot, box or bag)
** (For personal service signature must be that of messenger)